Psychometrics/testing Flashcards
four levels of measurement
nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio
nominal
categories- male/female
ordinal
ranks – 1st, 2nd, 3rd
interval
quantitative scores which tells relative rank and how far apart- GPA, IQ
ratio
has an absolute zero – temperature, time, length
mean
average (M)
median
middle number
mode
most frequent/common number
range
highest and lowest scores
-Do the scores cluster close to the mean or are they spread out?
variance
the average squared deviation from the mean; difference b/w each score and the mean, square the difference, taking average of the squares obtained
see equation
standard deviation
square route of the variance = variability of a distribution (s)
SD = √ variance
positive skew
inadequate floor, too HARD; to left
negative skew
inadequate ceiling, too EASY; to right
kurtosis
distribution that is flat or peaked at the top
platykurtic
flat top (flat like a plate)
leptokurtic
pointy on top (leap into the air!)
normal distribution
What % obtain above 1 SD:
-50% fall at or below mean
-½ of 68% = 34% score between mean and 1 SD
-THUS- 50% + 34% = 84% score below 1 SD
-100%- 84% = 16% score higher than 1 SD above mean
68% within 1 SD; 95% within 2 SD; 99% within 3 SD
see picture of normal distribution
developmental norms
norms that are based off of developmental milestones (i.e. grade or age)
-Used on tests of intellectual ability or academic achievement where skill being measured is thought to develop over time. i.e. WIAT
within group norms
how an examinee preformed relative to the norm group- same age, gender, etc.
-Use of within group norms is better to interpret tests because developmental norms can be easily misinterpreted.
types of within group norms
percentile rank, standard scores, z score, t score
percentile rank
what % of the normative sample obtained scores equal to or lower than that of the examinee
-Calculated directly from frequency distribution
standard scores
uses means and SD to transform a raw score into a new score to tell us where examine scores relative to their peers
-To obtain a standard score, convert the Z score to a scale with a mean or 100 and SD of 15
-SS = 15 Z + 100
-Used on IQ and achievement testing
-Mean of 100 and stdev of 15
z score
measures how far from mean the examine scored in units of standard deviation
-Subtract mean from raw score, divide score by standard deviation
t score
linear transformation of the Z score
- Multiply z score by 10 and add 50
-T = 10z + 50
-Used on MMPI
-Mean of 50 and Sd of 10
coverting t to z to ss scores
-T→ z → SS
Z = (T-50)/10
Z = (SS-100)/15
-T = 10z + 50
Example: Convert T = 63 to SS
63 – 50/10 = z = 1.4
1.4(15) + 100 = 121
correlation
statistic that describes the relationship between two variables, X and Y
Pearson: Range = -1.00 to +1.00 (magnitude and sign)
R = 0; X and Y not related
If r> 0, then higher scores on X associated with higher Y scores
If r< 0 then higher scores on X associated with lower scores on Y
curvilienar
r = 0…but still relationship
factors that affect the correlation coefficient
heteroscedasticity
homoscedasticity
restriction of range
heteroscedasticity
distribution is spread out- dots all over
Thus…correlation coefficient will not accurately reflect
homoscedasticity
evenly distributed – better
restriction of range
reduce the magnitude of r; not sampling full range
When a variable has restricted range, put little confidence in r
factor analysis
goal is to simplify a complex amount of information
…with an assumption that variables in the matrix correlate the way they do because there are one or more underlying themes or factors that link some of the variables together
factor extraction
extracting one or more factors
unrotated factor matrix
is what it originally looks like; then we rotate it to get rid of all the negative loadings
rotations
shifting the factors to see if they are correlated or not
rotated factor matrix
represent both how the variables are weighted for each f actor but also the correlation between the variables and the factor; shows loading of variables on the new rotated factors ; utilizes…
Turstone’s Criteria : to have a simple structure
systemic error
we can detect and eliminate- i.e. multiple choice test graded wrong
random error
cannot be fixed, inevitable, inescapable; most concerning b/c cant fix
classical test theory
your obtained score consists of your true score plus error
Obtained score = true score + error → Xo = Xt + e
time sampling and solution
Error due to time sampling; same group of examinees test again after a period of time has elapsed
ISSUES = Practice effect and time interval
SOLUTION: Test/ Re-test – not too long or too short!
Practice effect- 2nd admin never same as 1st
item sampling
error resulting from the need to select a subset of the total universe (domain) of items
alternate-form method
o 2 forms of test - same process to select items for both
o Is prohibitive because difficult to create twice as many good items
split half method
-Items divided into two half tests – often odd/even
-Decreases reliability when shorter (reliability related to length)
-Correlation must be adjusted by means of Spearman-Brown formula
internal consistency
are all the item on the scale equally good measures of the construct?; is the scale homogenous”
mean item-item (inter item) correlation
-Correlation between the scores on each pair of items on a test
-the larger the mean correlation, the more homogeneous the items
item total
-Correlation between each item and the total score of the test
-The correlation between the score on a particular item and the total score on the test is also known as the discriminability of the item
Kuder Richardson
reliability test for items that are either correct or incorrect
Chronbach’s alpha
measure of internal validity, used for non-binary items; MOST COMMON
-High value = homogeneity = interchangeable of construct
-Can be too high!! – identical questions, don’t survey variety
-Low value = might not be measuring the same construct
inter rate reliability
fixed with percent agreement calculating the percentage of the items they agree
Likely to underestimate the actual amount of error due to inter-rater difference
kappa
better way of assessing inter rater reliability- corrects for chance agreement and corrects for it
error variance
1.00 minus reliability
standard error of measurement (SEM)
confidence interval where your score, if retested, will fall
The SEM is INVERSELY related to the reliability
-If reliability is high, SEM is low
-If reliability is low, SEM is high
standard error of estimate (SEE)
confidence interval where your true score is
Example: 95% CI using SEE = 95-105
Means that there is a 95% chance that the person’s true score falls b/w 95 and 105
standard error of difference (SED)
used when you are comparing TWO scores and taking into account error associated with both scores to determine whether the scores are in fact different from each other; SED is always larger than then SEM of the two SEMs
SED = square root of (SEMsquared one + SEMsquared two) … aka
SED = √(SEM21 + SEM22)
validity
does the test measure what it claims to measure? *Reliability is a necessary condition for validity
face validity
-Does it look like a test that measures what is says it will? Does it look like they belong
-A cosmetic issue – not a requirement for validity
-Possible for test to be a highly valid measure, but low face validity - Ex. MMPI
content validity
-Do items have sufficient coverage? Covering what supposed to?
-A matter of professional judgment – no actual test for content validity
-Addressed during process of test construction
criterion validity
Goal is to demonstrate that the test correlates with other criteria that are important elements of the construct be measured
Ex. Self reports scale of depression compared to psychiatric diagnosis
concurrent validity
recorded at same time ; now
-To show that a test can be a substitute for more costly or inconvenient tests
-ex. Freshman GPA and college admissions test
predictive validity
recorded at a later point in time - is our test an accurate predictor?
-To show that the test can accurately predict future performance
-Ie SATs and college GPA
criterion appropriateness
-Basis measure manner in which the relationship between a test and criterion is expressed is via the correlation
- The correlation between a test and a criterion is called the validity coefficient
criterion contamination
those who assess the examinee should be blind to the test scores when assigning criterion
Ex. Psychiatrist should not know high score on depression scale before diagnosing depressing
criterion unreliability
poor reliability of the criterion measure
Correct for error with correction for attenuation – but might over correct
differential validity
validity of test differs depending on subgroup – i.e. gender and criterion is validity coefficient
incremental validity
Ability of a test to measure more accurately or precisely than other measures
-Does the test add to already existing measures?
stepwise multiple regression
-Comparison of the with the only existing measures and the after the new test has been added
-Statistical measure that identifies the optimal battery
shrinkage
a regression formula applied to a new sample will always shrink; helps to estimate by cross validation– concern
cross validation
to eliminate how much shrinkage
construct validity
Is the test adequately measuring the construct of interest
convergent validity
when a tests correlates highly with another test or observation with another test we would expect it to correlate with
Ex. High IQ and grades
discriminant validity
when a test does not correlate with observations it should not correlate with
multitrait
multimethod matrix - Methodology to assess convergent and discriminant validity
factorial validity
-Used to look at construct validity
-Examines the test’s factor structure to determine if it fits what is predicted or theoretically expected
exploratory factor analysis
No theories used – no hypothesis before - Let data tell you (hypothesis)
confirmatory factor analysis
start with hypothesis and test data against that (no hypothesis)
decision theory
statistics for evaluating the utility of a test in assigning a diagnosis
statistics depend on the cutting score
cutting score and what will increasing/decreasing the cutting sore do for sensitivity and specificity
the score that divides our scale into two parts
If above the cutting score – positive for a diagnosis
If below – negative for the diagnosis
Increasing the cutting score will DECREASE the sensitivity and INCREASE the specificity
Decreasing the cutting score with INCREAES the sensitivity and DECREASE the specificity
base rate within decision theory
Base rate must also be taken into account
Base Rate - Percentage of those in sample who actually have the disorder
Relative “cost” of false positive vs false negative error – depends on setting
What’s the risk of over or under diagnosing? How much do you adjust the cutting score?
true positive
test accurately identifies a person as having the disorder (A)
false positive
tests says that the person has the disorder when s/he actually does not (B)
true negative
test accurately identifies a person as NOT having the disorder (D)
false negative
tests says that the person does not have the disorder when s/he actually does have disorder (C)
hit rate
(A + D) / N
Percentage of ALL CASES correctly classified by the test
sensitivity
A / (A + C)
Percentage of people who HAVE the dx and were accurately identifies
specificity
D / (B + D)
Percentage of people who DO NOT HAVE dx and correctly identified as negative
positive predictive power
Positive predictive power – A / (A + B)
Percentage who received POSITIVE diagnosis that actually have it
negative predictive power
Negative predictive power - D / (C +D)
Percentage who receive a NEGATIVE diagnosis and do not have it
chart with letters for true and false positives and negatives
test result is positive and diagnosis is positive: A
test result is positive and diagnosis is negative: B
testing result is negative and diagnosis is positive: C
test result is negative and diagnosis is negative: D
item analysis
To make sure that you have the best possible items for the purposes to which we intend to use our test ; make sure have best possible items
difficulty
proportion who get item correct (reverse of what you’d think); how hard the item is
Example: item difficulty: .60 means 60% of examinees got the item correct
Harder items have LOW values for the item difficulty parameter
Easy item have HIGH value for the item difficult parameter
peaked test
consists of item that all have the same value for item difficulty (low or high)
inadequate floor (positively skewed) and item difficulty
shows items are too difficult
inadequate ceiling (negative skew) and item difficulty
shows items are too easy
discriminability
correlation between item score and total test score
Refers to the degree to which an item can differentiate among test takers on the trait or ability being measured
measure of discriminability
One common measure is the correlation by the item score and total score on the test, technically known as the point-biserial correlation
(Special case of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient)
Examines the correlation between a dichotomous variable and a continuous variable
what do the values of item discriminability mean
High Positive Values = good discriminability
Zero (or close) = poorly discriminating item – does not help discriminate
Negative = bad item! Those who get item right tend to get lower scores on the test
item characteristic curves
plots % passing item (Y-axis) against the total score on the test (X-axis)
Looks at difficulty in discriminability
Steepness of curve or slope, provides information about item discriminability
Steeper = greater discriminability
item response theory / latent trait theory
Involves use of mathematical models to define the item characteristic curve (ICC)
Attempts to construct ICC’s that reflect the relationship between the probability of passing an item and the person’s standing on a scale of ability that is invariant across different samples
Theta (Ɵ) = ability or latent trait
p (Ɵ) = probability that an individual of ability level = (Ɵ) will get item correct
one parameter (RASCH) model
bases the ICC on a single item parameter: difficulty
item difficulty
is defined as the ability level (theta; Ɵ) where the probability of getting the item correct [p (Ɵ)] = .50
test bias
test predicts criterion with different accuracy for two groups; poor choice for making decisions about people from diverse populations
item bias
if trait being assessed is not equal in all subgroups (i.e. never been pregnant)
slope bias (differential validity)
test predicts criterion with different accuracy for two groups
-Biased b/c not predict criterion as accurately for males as does for females
-Different slope
intercept bias
one group obtains higher scores on the test than the other, even though the test predicts the criterion score equally well for both groups
-Same slope but one group has lower mean
-Solution for slope and intercept bias = employ a modified quota system; i.e. admission committee decided on 50% male and 50% female instead of another cutoff score
informed consent ethics of testing
-Want to obtain consent
-Assent (from child)
-What is included in informed consent?
-General description, nature and purpose of assessment, fee
-Client given opportunity to ask questions
exceptions for informed consent in testing
-Mandated by law or government regulations (detention center)
-Informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional, or organization activity
-(assessment when applying for a job)
-Evaluate decisional capacity
confidentiality
-Client decided to whom the test results are released
-If client referred by 3rd party, must discuss limits before assessment begins
test data
raw and scaled scores; actual responses to questions; any recordings
-Cannot withhold test data
-Make efforts to see that the recipient is informed about the meaning of data
test materials
copies of manuals or copies of test questions or stimuli
-Make reasonable efforts to maintain security
-Client not entitled to material
take home tests
not advisable, but not forbidden – better in office with supervision
WISC vs WAIS ages
-WISC-V: ages 6-16
-WAIS: ages 16-90
VCI scale
- Verbal concept formation; Verbal reasoning
- Knowledge acquired from ones environment; Requires ability to express ideas in words
PRI scale
- Perceptual and fluid reasoning; Spatial processing; Visual-motor integration
WMI scale
- Working memory abilities; Weaknesses in attention and concentration will negatively affect WM
- temporarily retain information in memory while performing a mental operation on it to produce a result
PSI scale
- Processing speed
- Ability to quickly and correctly scan, sequence, or discriminate simple visual information
- Measures Short term memory, visual memory, attention, visual-motor coordination
subtests in VCI
-Similarities – measures abstract verbal reasoning
-Vocabulary – facility with words, extent of vocabulary, and verbal concept formation; crystallized ability
-Information – fund of general knowledge; crystallized
supplemental
-Comprehension – understanding of general principles in social situations; fluid knowledge
WISC:
-Word Reasoning – fluid reasoning in older children (8 and up); for 6-8 its more direct retrieval factual knowledge
subtests in PRI
Block design – ability to analyze and synthesize abstract visual information; visual-motor coordination
Visual Puzzles – nonverbal reasoning; analyze and synthesize abstract visual information; no visuo-motor component
Matrix Reasoning – fluid intelligence, spatial ability, perceptual organization
supplemental
-Picture completion – influenced by crystallize d ability; influenced by processing speed; visual analogy to information; involves retrieval of stored information
-Figure Weights – quantitative ability visually (19-69 only)
WISC:
-Picture concepts – abstract reasoning, visual and nonverbal analogy to similarities; more concrete
WMI subtests
Digit-span
-Forward – passive encoding
-Backward – encoding and more working memory
Arithmetic - requires mental manipulation
Supplemental
-L-N sequencing – more complex than DS; if greater than DS by 3+ = attention and concentration or motivational issues (16-69 only)
PSI subtests
Coding – more influenced by endurance and graph-motor skill than SS; perfectionism might hinder
Symbol search – ability to sustain attention; careful visual discriminations rapidly
Supplemental:
-Cancellation – organization, strategy, arrangement and ability to sustain attention (16-69 only)-
when is FSIQ not accurate in WAIS or WISC
-VCI & PRI differ by 20 points or more
–VCI & WMI differ by 20 points or more
-PRI & PSI differ by 20 points or more
what to do if FSIQ is not valid
GAI – general ability index
-use VCI and PRI -(exclude WMI and PSI)
-General Ability Index (GAI = VCI + PRI)
-(focus more on reasoning abilities)
relative weakness/strength
in comparison to the rest of the examinee’s scores (7 and 13)
normative weakness/strength
in comparison to my peers (85 and 115)
minimum stat significance across scales
VCI vs PRI: >9
VCI vs WMI: > 12
PRI vs. PSI: > 12
PSI vs. WMI: > 12
interpretation of significant difference of VCI and PRI
Verbal knowledge and reasoning, crystalized intelligence vs.
Visual/spatial processing and fluid reasoning
significant difference of VCI and WMI
Performance on verbal/auditory tasks when working memory and attention are more (WMI) or less (VCI) important
significant difference of PRI vs. PSI
Performance on tasks involving visual stimuli when speed of processing is more (PSI) or less (PRI) important
significant difference of WMI vs PSI
Attention to verbal/auditory stimuli (WMI) vs visual stimuli (PSI)
explain “evenly developed abilities without particular personal strengths or weaknesses”
-Differences between pairs of index scores in previous slide are not statistically significant
-No subtests stand out as RS (relative strength) or RW (relative weakness) within indices
-Maybe a few ups and down but nothing extreme THESE ARE the people you can confidently use FSIQ as their “general intelligence”
explain verbal (crystallized) abilities differing from visual/spatial (fluid) abilities
VCI and PRI are both interpretable and are significantly different from each other
explain “relative weakness in working memory”
-WMI is interpretable stands out as relative weakness among index scores
-WMI significantly lower than VCI (assuming both index scores are interpretable)
-Arithmetic might not cluster with DS and LN because of quantitative component being stronger (A > DS,LN) or weaker (A < DS,LN)
explain “relative weakness in processing speed”
-PSI is interpretable and stands out as relative weakness among index scores
-PSI significantly lower than PRI (assuming both index scores are interpretable)
-Might also see BDN > BD
what scores might signify attentional difficulties
Attentional difficulties are suggested if VCI is significantly higher than WMI AND PRI is significantly higher than PSI
-attention: WMI, PSI
- Reasoning and Problem Solving : VCI, PRI
(WMI < VCI) and (PSI < PRI)
WMI requires attention to AUDITORY stimuli; PSI requires attention to VISUAL stimuli
descriptive ratings of scores of IQ
100 average, 15 SD
130+ very superior
120-129 superior
110-119 high average
90-109 average
80-89 low average
70-79 borderline
below 69 extremely low
descriptive ratings of scores on subtests
16-19 very superior
14-15 superior
12-13 high average
9-11 average
7-8 low average
5-6 borderline
1-4 extremely low
age ranges for MMPI and MMPIA
MMPI-2: At least 6th grade reading level & 18+
MMPI-A: 14-18
VRIN scale
variable response inconsistency
inconsistent responding or random responding
-VRIN > 79T indicates a level of inconsistent responding that invalidates the test. The profile should not be interpreted.
-T score of 80 or higher on VRIN, it is invalid and NOT interpreted.
TRIN scale
true response inconsistency
tendency to answer T or F; acquiescence bias
-True (yea saying or acquiescence) or False (nay saying) regardless of the content of the item.
-TRIN > 79T suggests the profile is invalid and should not be interpreted.
underreporting
Test underestimates the degree of problems or pathology
L(lie scale)
(T ≥ 65)
1. The person is deliberately trying to “fake good” and make themselves look unusually well adjusted
- The person has very little insight into themselves, so that they actually believe they are as well adjusted as they are making themselves look, Naïve and believe it.
- This one is rare: Certain members of the clergy will obtain high scores on L, possibly because they are unusually careful about not doing anything wrong.
-not very good at picking up more sophisticated forms of defensiveness…K scale can do this
K (correction) scale T > 65
-Detect more sophisticated forms of defensiveness
-elevate on K underreport problems or symptoms because of: limited insight, defensiveness, or desire to present themselves in a positive light
-The effect of the underreporting bias that is picked up by K is to make the person look better adjusted than they actually are.
S scale
-Superlative” scale.
-There are five major dimensions in the S scale: (1) belief in human goodness; (2) serenity; (3) contentment with life; (4) patience and denial of irritability and anger; (5) denial of moral flaws.
-The S scale is particularly useful in detecting underreporting and “faking good” in non-clinical samples (if S ≥ 65).
over reporting
person is reporting MORE problems or MORE SEVERE problems than they actually have. motivated by some kind of gain (financial or otherwise) or to call attention to their problem/ “cry for help”
F scale
Infrequency scale
-items that were very rarely endorsed
-Reasons: lack of cooperation, inadequate reading level, response bias
-Correlated with severe psychiatric disturbances
Fp scale
(Infrequency-psychopathology)
Attempts to separate out the effect of psychopathology from other influences on the elevation of the F-scale
If F ≥ T score 90:
-Fp ≥ 100: PROFILE IS INVALID
-Fp < 100: Cautiously interpret profile
Fb
created for new content
since all F items appear in the first 370 test questions, the Fb scale was created to assess over-reporting and/or inconsistent responding in the rest of the items
-NO, if Fb ≥ 90→Do not interpret content and supplemental scales.
profile is invalid if any of the following apply
More than 30 items not answered
VRIN ≥ 80T (inconsistent responding)
TRIN ≥ 80T (bias towards answering T or F)
F ≥ 90T (over-reporting)
If Fp < 100T, may interpret profile with caution
If Fb ≥ 90T, do not interpret content, supplemental, and PSY-5 scales (maybe interpret clinical scales)
L ≥ 80T (extreme denial)
S ≥ 75T (extreme defensiveness)
interpret with caution if any of the following apply
Between 10-29 items omitted
VRIN between 70-79 (some inconsistency)
TRIN between 70-79 (some T/F bias)
F between 80-89 or Fp between 80-99 (possible over-reporting)
L between 65-79: (effort to present self in unrealistically favorable light)
K ≥ 65: (defensiveness and minimization of problems)
– Check non-K-corrected profile if K is in this range
test taking approach scores that you can comment on
–general idea of how a person approached the test, if have these, then mention it!
Open and non-defensive: F ≤ 80, L < 60, K between 40-60.
Mild defensiveness: L or K between 60 and 64
K ≤ 40 (especially if F > 80): self-critical; possible exaggeration of problems
interpretation of T > 75
Problems are likely to be severe and characteristics associated with scale or code type are likely to be prominent (higher elevations = more symptoms and greater severity)
interpretation of T 70-74
Most of the characteristics associated w/ the scale or code type are likely to be present and problems are moderate in severity
interpretation of T 65-69
Some of the characteristics associated w/ elevation on the scale or code type are likely to apply but some others might not apply. Problems reflected by scale are likely to be mild.
interpretation of T 60-64
Tendencies associated w/ the scale or code type are present but DO NOT IMPLY PATHOLOGY FOR SCORES IN THIS RANGE.
interpretation of T 41-59
Within normal limits; scale should not be interpreted
interpretation of T < 40
Low Score. Some (not all) of the scales are interpretable at this range
Clinical scale Hs (1)
hypochondriasis
excessive bodily concern
Clinical scale D (2)
depression
depressive symptoms
Clinical scale Hy (3)
hysteria
somatization and denial
Clinical scale Pd (4)
psychopathic deviate
rebelliousness and non conformity
Clinical scale Mf (5)
masculinity femininity
non conformity to traditional traits and interests associated with ones gender
Clinical scale Pa (6)
paranoia
suspiciousness and oversensitivity
Clinical scale Pt (7)
Psychaesthenia
anxiety and self doubt
Clinical scale Sc (8)
schizophrenia
odd and eccentric thoughts and beliefs
Clinical scale Ma (9)
mania
overactivity and impulsivity
Clinical scale Si (0)
social introversion
shyness and social avoidance
ANX content scale
anxiety – generalized anxiety and excessive worry
FRS content scale
fears – general fearfulness and specific phobias – condensation of anxiety
OBS content scale
obsessiveness – indecisiveness and rumination – closer to axis I OCD
DEP content scale
depression – full range of depressive symptoms – low scores do not r/o suicide
HEA content scale
health concerns – preoccupation with bodily concerns – redundant to scale 1
BIZ content scale
bizarre mentation – reflects peculiar and unusual ideation, primarily of a paranoid nature, easily denied by someone who wishes to conceal
ANG content scale
anger – high levels of anger and hostility – subscale help determine how anger is expressed and experienced
CYN content scale
cynicism – bipolar scale – from naive optimism on low end to mistrustful and negative attitudes on high end
ASP content scale
antisocial practices – antisocial behaviors
TPA content scale
impatience, competitiveness and compulsivity – measures interpersonal hostility
LSE content scale
low self esteem – bipolar dimension – high unrealistically self esteem to low self esteem
SOD content scale
social discomfort – also bipolar dimension – extraversion to introversion
FAM content scale
family problems – family tension and conflict
WRK content scale
work interference – broad range of problems that are likely to interfere with work
TRT content scale
negative treatment indicators – indicator as obstacles to effective treatment
MAC R substance abuse scale
MacAndrew’s alcoholism scale - Suspicion drugs are prominent in their life
-High scores = extraverted, uninhibited, pleasure seeking
-Low scores = timid, non-aggressive, submissive to authority
APS substance abuse scale
Addiction potential scale - More emotionally distress, oversensitive, guilt prone
ASS substance abuse scale
addiction admission scale
-High scores openly acknowledge substance abuse behaviors; Low – deny behaviors
substance abuse scale scores
If all 3 low – likelihood of substance abuse is low; If all MAC-R and/or APS elevate – substance abuse should be strongly considered; Rare but possible for only ASS elevated = possible substance abuse in the past, but nothing currently
common code types in MMPI
-27/72 = depression
-13/31 = Somatic Complaints
-49/94 = antisocial features, acting out
-68/86 = paranoid psychosis
RCd
Demoralization
Provides an indication of the overall emotional discomfort the individual is reporting - may describe selves as discouraged, insecure, pessimistic, helpless.
RC1
Somatic Complaints
Excessively preoccupied with bodily concerns and probably present a diffuse set of health concerns, such as fatigue, weakness, and chronic pain (high levels) - high scores are inclined toward somatization
RC2
Low Positive Emotions
Individuals who produce elevated scores report a lack of positive emotional engagement in their lives - increased risk of experiencing depression - pessimistic, withdrawn, and passive in social situations - find it difficult to take charge and make decisions
RC3
Cynicism
Core component of scale 3 (excessive avowal of trust) - high scores reflect higher level of cynicism and endorse that others are untrustworthy, untruthful, uncaring, and exploit others - those with low scores ay be naive, gullible, and overly trusting
RC4
Antisocial Behavior
Assessment of antisocial tendencies as the questions allow people to acknowledge past and current antisocial behaviors and related family conflict.
RC6
ideas of Persecution
Individuals with high scores may feel mistreated and picked on, and may have significant difficulties forming trusting relationships - scores above 75T suggest paranoid thinking that may be symptomatic of schizophrenia or delusional disorders.
RC7
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
Reflects a tendency to have negative emotional experiences, conceptualized as underlying anxiety, irritability, and other forms of aversive reactivity - high scores are at an increased risk for experiencing anxiety and/or developing anxiety disorders
RC8
Aberrant Experiences
Describes a variety of sensory, perceptual, cognitive, and motor disturbances that indicate impaired functioning of the self - individuals who produce elevated scores report frank psychotic symptoms that may include visual or olfactory hallucinations, bizarre perceptual experiences, and delusional beliefs involving thought broadcasting - scores equal to or above 75T may meet diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia, delusional, or schizoaffective disorder - more moderate (65-74) are suggestive of schizotypal characteristics
RC9
Hypomanic Activation
Items describe a variety of emotions, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors consistent with hypomanic activation, including thought racing, high energy, heightened mood and self-regard, excitement seeking, irritability, and pugnacity - those with scores equal to or above 75T may be experiencing hypomania or mania and may also meet criteria for a bipolar disorder.
code type
pattern defined by the two (sometimes three) highest clinical scales in the profile, certain code types occur commonly and these have been found to have particular interpretative correlates
no scales > 65T
within normal limits
one scale > 65T
spike
spike
only one scale is > 65 and the highest scale is more than 5T higher than second highest scale
two or more scales > 65T
consider whether the profile fits guidelines for well defined two point or three point code type
well defined 2 point code type
the highest scale is less than 5T higher than the second highest scale, and the second highest scale is at least 5 points higher than the third highest
well defined 3 point code type
second highest scale is less than 5T higher than third highest and third highest is more than 5T higher than 4th highest
correlation matrix
Correlation Matrix: calculate correlation between each pair of tests in a battery (find correlation between each combination of samples)
factor loading
Factor loading = correlation between each of the original variables and each factor
oblique factors
orthogonal factor
factors are correlated with one another
factors are not correlated with one another
